System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: The Articles

Here are links to each of the four articles in this quarter’s System Builder Marathon (we’ll update them as each story is published). And remember, these systems are all being given away at the end of the marathon.

Introduction

Our System Builder Marathon series typically includes three builds that target the best gaming value, the best overall value, and the best overall performance. That formula usually works well for us, and the mid-priced setup does take top honors in our final analysis (at least it has the previous three quarters). Of course, we also use a really wide spread of price points most of the time: $500, $1,000, and $2,000, or some variation of doubling price two times. With time, we've figured out that you usually get the best performance for your dollar somewhere in the $1,000 range.

Can we get even more precise, though?

This quarter, we're zooming in on that sweet spot by narrowing our focus to price points all around it. I typically find that the most value-oriented components can be combined into a complete hardware solution (minus peripherals) that costs around $800. That price falls closest to our usual mid-range build. So, our results almost always support my theory.

Don, Paul, and Chris decided that it was time to put some money on that claim, which is how $800 became the mid-point for this quarter's System Builder Marathon. I was forced to give up half of my $2,000 budget to build a $1,000 system, while Don dropped from $1,000 to $800. Paul, on the other hand, jumped from $500 to $600 (lucky him). Knowing that an $800 system win would hand me the debate and a $1,000 system win would hand me the competition, I had only one thing left to say to those odds: Game on!

The one thing I didn't anticipate was that an extra $100 would give Paul the opportunity to use an Ivy Bridge-based processor with limited overclocking to the tune of 400 MHz over its stock setting. Surely that small speed-up wouldn't be enough to let the $600 machine keep up with fully-unlocked $800 and $1,000 boxes, right?

You would think with an extra $200 you can get a noticeable difference in fps..

plasmaj12345

thymanbearpigYou would think with an extra $200 you can get a noticeable difference in fps..

The only real difference between the $800 and $1000 PC is that the $1000 has an SSD. They both have the same CPU, RAM, and GPU. Gaming should be about the same on both.

saxplayingcompnerd

@thymanbearpig They use the same GPU, most games are GPU bottle-necked. That's how they get nearly the same FPS.

mayankleoboy1

Something i posted last quarter too :

Why would all the machines have same percent emphasis on games and productivity apps ? Why would a $600 gaming PC be evaluated similarly to a $800 enthusiast PC ? The percentwise distribution of each metric should be based on what usage the build was meant for.

How about building up the $1000 machine into a dual-GPU added-storage $1600 PC?

mayankleoboy1

can we have a chart of the combined totals of :1) FPS in games2)time taken in appsfor each build?

so that we may draw our own conclusions from the data? I am not entirely satisfied with the conclusions you have drawn.

System Builder Marathons should use a $600, $1200, and $1800 dollar standard.

Crashman

mayankleoboy1can we have a chart of the combined totals of :1) FPS in games2)time taken in appsfor each build?so that we may draw our own conclusions from the data? I am not entirely satisfied with the conclusions you have drawn.

Percentages are just as accurate, you'll find those on Page 13 along with power numbers.

bdizzle11

For next SBM how about a $800, $1200, $1600. A little bit higher but more spread. I think that would better determine the sweet spot...

atomicWAR

Honestly i would like to see an up-graders marathon. With price points of 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1600, 2000 covered all using the same case, CD/dvd, and mech HDD (not included in cost). Those are the most common carry over parts besides my water-cooling that carries over build to build. I believe it would be a very useful and realistic application of funds many of your readers could relate to.

Crashman

bdizzle11For next SBM how about a $800, $1200, $1600. A little bit higher but more spread. I think that would better determine the sweet spot...

I like that idea too! But the $800 PC...would that be the $600 PC with GPU upgrade and an added SSD? Because the $600 PC topped the charts this time.

Crashman

atomicWARHonestly i would like to see an up-graders marathon. With price points of 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1600, 2000 covered all using the same case, CD/dvd, and mech HDD (not included in cost). Those are the most common carry over parts besides my water-cooling that carries over build to build. I believe it would be a very useful and realistic use of funds many of your readers could relate to.

That's an awesome idea too! We could get some old-fashioned Chieftech Dragon (or similarly-popular) cases, maybe some older 700W power supplies and hard drives, match everything and just change the platform. Anyone else think this is a good idea?

mayankleoboy1

edit.

lunyone

I would too like to see a system built with the Case/PSU/HD/DVD not included in the price, since most people building their own builds would most likely transfer those parts over (but I would probably upgrade the PSU, because it might be 4-5 yrs. old). So if we just didn't include the Case/HD/DVD into the cost than we could actually subtract about ($35 case/$50 HD/$20 DVD) $100-110 from the build costs on these SBM's. This would leave us with $500/$700/$900 build options, if we would like to consider those price points. I myself would like to see $400/$650/$900 builds with the above mentioned parts left out. This would get us a similar results, unless one would use a different GPU from the $650 to $900 build. One could possibly upgrade the GPU and get a 120/128gb SSD to fit within the $250 difference in price.

_Pez_

maybe avoiding the same hardware between setups would be a better system comparison.

I think that there is no point of comparison between the last two setups.... I would have picked an amd setup just to change things...

atomicWAR

lunyoneI would too like to see a system built with the Case/PSU/HD/DVD not included in the price, since most people building their own builds would most likely transfer those parts over (but I would probably upgrade the PSU, because it might be 4-5 yrs. old). So if we just didn't include the Case/HD/DVD into the cost than we could actually subtract about ($35 case/$50 HD/$20 DVD) $100-110 from the build costs on these SBM's. This would leave us with $500/$700/$900 build options, if we would like to consider those price points. I myself would like to see $400/$650/$900 builds with the above mentioned parts left out. This would get us a similar results, unless one would use a different GPU from the $650 to $900 build. One could possibly upgrade the GPU and get a 120/128gb SSD to fit within the $250 difference in price.

yeah i think the PSU is one always worth updating as it is the heart of any system.

so maybe a psu/cpu/mobo/ram/cooling/graphic +what ever extras you can afford on said budget.

agnickolov

I'd suggest stepping the budget up by $200 for the next SBM - $800, $1000, $1200.

agnickolov

And a comment on the Visual Studio results - the $1000 machine's lead is almost exclusively due to the SSD, not the faster memory. C++ compilation has lots of disk I/O that dwarfs memory access. Speaking as a professional C++ developer myself.

Crashman

_Pez_maybe avoiding the same hardware between setups would be a better system comparison.I think that there is no point of comparison between the last two setups.... I would have picked an amd setup just to change things...

BS Seriously, if you think there's no point in comparing two similar systems, you're completely missing THE point. Two builders were given full license to build anything they wanted within their budgets, and you ended up with two of the same CPU and GPU because those parts were the parts that made the most sense from a value perspective.

You're saying that these builds should have been coordinated, rather than competitive, and that a builder should have "took one for the team" by using inferior hardware? This was a competition, that's the point.

chesteracorgi

I think the spread between the builds was too small to show a significant difference. I suggest that you increase the spread with $600/$900/$1200 or $700/$1100/$1500 targets. It would give the builders a better chance to differentiate their hardware.

pauldh

ChesteracorgiI think the spread between the builds was too small to show a significant difference. I suggest that you increase the spread with $600/$900/$1200 or $700/$1100/$1500 targets. It would give the builders a better chance to differentiate their hardware.

6/9/12 was another we had considered. The thing is, we've assumed $800 was the sweet spot, and $1000 was the reigning champ, so 6/8/10 was tha natural starting point.

pauldh

CrashmanBS Seriously, if you think there's no point in comparing two similar systems, you're completely missing THE point. Two builders were given full license to build anything they wanted within their budgets, and you ended up with two of the same CPU and GPU because those parts were the parts that made the most sense from a value perspective.You're saying that these builds should have been coordinated, rather than competitive, and that a builder should have "took one for the team" by using inferior hardware? This was a competition, that's the point.

Yes, this! Excellent reply, agree 100%!

CrashmanI like that idea too! But the $800 PC...would that be the $600 PC with GPU upgrade and an added SSD? Because the $600 PC topped the charts this time.

I’m game! And we continue to think alike. After what we have learned here, that is exactly what you will get from me at $800… The $600 PC + Tahiti LE (assuming these don’t disappear), 8GB RAM, slight power bump (mostly so I don’t need a molex adapter) and a 64-128GB (maybe a bit of a cheat, but a practical real-world use of an SSD on the cheap). If there are a few bucks left, then a bump in the case with USB 3.0 and an intake fan, (you got us there for sure). But prior to this experiment, I would have ended up right in Don’s camp, treating the SSD as a luxury and seeking an i5 K-series and big graphics.

Nice write-up BTW, and I totally agree with the three winners analysis! We traded blows, (yet the irony, the non-K-series on boxed cooling, loses stock but wins overclocked!? lol) and Don’s was indeed the best "gaming rig" of the bunch. Pop Core-i3 into his, lose the $15 cooler, maybe shed some from the mobo, and IMO you get an affordable gaming beast! (edit: but of course, one that get's smoked in this competition.)

shadowhammer

I think you have hit the sweet spot for value oriented builds. $600 to $1000 is a spot in the chain. Only $400 separates the builds from lowest to highest and the value ends up being close.

This gives people witrh a lower budget the ability to game without breaking the bank while providing those with higher budgets the ability to add extras.

I think that you forget a sweet spot is not looking for an exact dollar amount. It is looking for a spot or a range within which to work. That spot for value oriented builds looks to be between $600 and $1000.

matagilis

Lower the cheap machine's price!

It's amazing how much gaming performance you can get for not much, and many of us have very tight budgets